AW189
The first Yeovil-built AW189, s/n 92001, was originally an SAR aircraft, G-MCGN on the UK SAR contract. A couple of weeks ago it was re-registered as G-CJNV and has appeared in O&G guise at Aberdeen. The latest Bristow earnings report also indicates a change in the financial provision for buying AW189 SAR aircraft for the UK SAR contract.
Of the six remaining AW189 SAR, only three are registered to BHL and the other three still AW/Leonardo.
Lee-on-Solent work-up soon followed shortly thereafter by Prestwick (two per base) so presumably another handover is due soon.
By this strange twist, Yeovil has produced a helicopter for a normal commercial operation. Whoa, scary!
Funny old world.
Of the six remaining AW189 SAR, only three are registered to BHL and the other three still AW/Leonardo.
Lee-on-Solent work-up soon followed shortly thereafter by Prestwick (two per base) so presumably another handover is due soon.
By this strange twist, Yeovil has produced a helicopter for a normal commercial operation. Whoa, scary!
Funny old world.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeovil built?
It will be interesting to see how many of this variant Yeovil eventually 'build'. Let's face it, it's a Polish airframe,normally assembled at Vergiate.
The Sar variants fuel storage config is probably well suited to crew change duties, as the centre fuselage tank space can be used for baggage.
As the afformentioned airframe has only had its tailboom resprayed white, its redeployment may only be temporary
The Sar variants fuel storage config is probably well suited to crew change duties, as the centre fuselage tank space can be used for baggage.
As the afformentioned airframe has only had its tailboom resprayed white, its redeployment may only be temporary
Has there not already been a main gearbox issue? Is the MRGB man enough for those 2 big engines?
crab do tell, with 50 minute dry run, the MGB is proven as being very tough. I'd like to know where you got your info and what you are talking about. Those MGB's and the 139 MGB are pretty darn strong.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGB
Just a thought, but might this Mgb issue be no more than a unshedueled change as a result of a Hums alert or trend change.You will find, post225 incidents,no major operator or manufacturer will be taking any chances.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: France
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be pedantic, it isn't 'run dry' - it's 'run with back up oil supply'.
https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news...ithin-a-month/
Anyone know if this is pure co-incidence or a design fault? I also disagree with the idea that this is not a safety critical incident:
'It is of course a serious issue when something falls off a helicopter during flight, but neither incident presented any critical risk to the safety of the aircraft or the passengers. A window falling out does not present any danger to life as a helicopter cabin is not pressurised.'
So it's serious and not....!
Anyone know if this is pure co-incidence or a design fault? I also disagree with the idea that this is not a safety critical incident:
'It is of course a serious issue when something falls off a helicopter during flight, but neither incident presented any critical risk to the safety of the aircraft or the passengers. A window falling out does not present any danger to life as a helicopter cabin is not pressurised.'
So it's serious and not....!
Since the most critical areas of the gearbox are the two high speed inputs, a clever "passive" method to continue to feed oil in case of loss of lubrication has been designed, that does not need pilot's activation, sensors, pumps, external coolants or whatever.
Basically, the working main lubrication system keeps a small reservoir always filled, the reservoir drains very very slowly, thus guaranteeing a minimum oil drip that keeps input lubricated and cooled in case of loss of oil pressure because of pump failures or loss of oil.
The rest of the gearbox has to run dry.
Not wanting to be pedantic, but the phrase Run-Dry is misleading and not a term used by the regulatory authorities.
The loss of lubricant guidance of AC 29-2C does not require the transmission to be empty of oil, as the test allows for a predetermined level of residual oil to be left in the transmission during the test, so most certainly not Run-Dry by any standards.
If you assembled a MGB using just a light lubrication of all the contact surfaces, bearing and gears etc. and performed the loss of lubrication test required by part 29.927(c)(1), I’d bet my shirt that there is not a helicopter MGB out there used for commercial operations that would pass the loss of lubrication test.
The loss of lubricant guidance of AC 29-2C does not require the transmission to be empty of oil, as the test allows for a predetermined level of residual oil to be left in the transmission during the test, so most certainly not Run-Dry by any standards.
If you assembled a MGB using just a light lubrication of all the contact surfaces, bearing and gears etc. and performed the loss of lubrication test required by part 29.927(c)(1), I’d bet my shirt that there is not a helicopter MGB out there used for commercial operations that would pass the loss of lubrication test.
Actually, to be pedantic, the run dry test that AW does is done with the MGB totally drained of oil. No back up system. The back up system is only for Oil and Gas machines and is a very recent add-on with the 139 (copied from 189 system).
The 139 MGB was run for 30 minutes with oil, then drained of oil and run a further 30 minutes. Freewheels were then pulled to see how much damage was done. Freewheels were then put back and a FURTHER 30 minutes dry running was done (all at 100% NR and 100%TQ).
MGB was then stopped and inspected again. Inputs were toast. Paint was all brown and bubbling off. Smoke everywhere.
If you want to have a look at that MGB, go to Sesto, it is on the Maintenance Sim. Every mechanic who does the practical training there pulls the freewheel out and inspects it. Jaws often drop
169 MGB ran continuously for 52 minutes dry (no back up system) before they stopped the test.
The 139 MGB was run for 30 minutes with oil, then drained of oil and run a further 30 minutes. Freewheels were then pulled to see how much damage was done. Freewheels were then put back and a FURTHER 30 minutes dry running was done (all at 100% NR and 100%TQ).
MGB was then stopped and inspected again. Inputs were toast. Paint was all brown and bubbling off. Smoke everywhere.
If you want to have a look at that MGB, go to Sesto, it is on the Maintenance Sim. Every mechanic who does the practical training there pulls the freewheel out and inspects it. Jaws often drop
169 MGB ran continuously for 52 minutes dry (no back up system) before they stopped the test.
https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news...ithin-a-month/
Anyone know if this is pure co-incidence or a design fault? I also disagree with the idea that this is not a safety critical incident:
'It is of course a serious issue when something falls off a helicopter during flight, but neither incident presented any critical risk to the safety of the aircraft or the passengers. A window falling out does not present any danger to life as a helicopter cabin is not pressurised.'
So it's serious and not....!
Anyone know if this is pure co-incidence or a design fault? I also disagree with the idea that this is not a safety critical incident:
'It is of course a serious issue when something falls off a helicopter during flight, but neither incident presented any critical risk to the safety of the aircraft or the passengers. A window falling out does not present any danger to life as a helicopter cabin is not pressurised.'
So it's serious and not....!